Saturday Night Theologian
17 January 2010

When the nation of Israel was established in 1948, many people around
the world saw the events as the fulfillment of prophecy. Others believed
that the Jewish people had been recompensed in some measure for the
horrors they suffered under Adolf Hitler, and indeed under many other
oppressors through the centuries. For the Palestinians whose land was
confiscated and whose villages were destroyed, however, the state of
Israel was an unmitigated disaster. Thus, the establishment of Israel as
a nation was at best a mixed bag, with some positives (arguably) but even
more negatives (indisputably). How, then, can one interpret a passage
such as today's reading from Isaiah, which begins, "For Zion's sake I will
not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest"? The prophet
(often called Trito-Isaiah, or Third Isaiah) speaks to Jewish returnees
who are living in their traditional homeland, which continues to suffer
neglect and poverty. He voices God's promise to restore the fortunes of
God's people so that the other nations will see Israel's renewal as a sign
of divine blessing. I would argue that this prophecy was in fact
fulfilled in large measure in the years that followed the Jews' return
from Babylonian exile. They rebuilt the temple and eventually the city of
Jerusalem itself. Yes, they continued to be under Persian hegemony until
the time of the Maccabees, but their lot was generally good during this
period. More important than determining whether or not this prophecy was
literally fulfilled--I think such a question is a hermeneutical
distraction from examining the meaning of the prophecy in its historical
context and in its present application--we must examine the issue of how
(or whether) it can be applied in our current situation. To attempt to
apply this prophecy, or any other, to the present state of Israel is a
mistake. Today's nation of Israel is not the Israel of the Bible, any
more than the modern nation of Italy is the Roman Empire of the New
Testament. Instead, we should ask the question, of whom is God speaking?
God is speaking of God's chosen people, and God has promised not to rest
"until her vindication shines out like the dawn, and her salvation like a
burning torch." The people whom God loves, who are called by God's name
(cf. Isaiah 43:7), are the entire community of humankind. Thinking of
"God's people" in narrow religious terms, or (even worse) in modern
nationalistic terms, has led to wars, injustice, and acts of atrocity over
the millennia that we who live in the nuclear age must cast aside before
it is too late. In a recent episode of Star Trek: Enterprise, the
Enterprise is captured by a group of people intent on taking the ship back
to their home planet and annihilating their enemies, to whom they refer as
heretics. The point of theological dissent? Whether "the makers" created
the universe in nine or ten days! Over this point of difference, the
factions had been fighting for centuries, and when the Enterprise finally
reaches the planet, it has been destroyed in the interim by the two
factions (die-hard Trekkies will recognize this as a remake of "Let That
Be Your Last Battlefield" from the original series, which focused on
racism rather than religion). Before maniacs with access to nuclear
arsenals begin to use nuclear weapons again on their enemies in the name
of "preemption," let us strive to make the world a place that can honestly
be called "My Delight Is in Her" and replace those who would lead us down
the path of Desolation with those who have a keener insight into God's
nature and will.

Natural disasters bring out the best in some people and the worst in
others. The devastating earthquake that struck Haiti this week is no
exception. For the vast majority of people in the hemisphere--and
around the world--the suffering of the Haitian people spurred prayers,
financial donations, and medical and material assistance. Aid poured in
from Haiti's neighbor to the east, the Dominican Republic, and from
their neighbor to the west, Cuba. The United States immediately sent a
hospital ship, troops, and supplies. Other countries in the Americas
and around the Caribbean offered help, exhibiting a compassion that
represents the best in the human spirit. Then there were the actions of
Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. To call their initial responses
reprehensible would be to put too kind a face on it. Robertson blamed
the Haitian people for the earthquake, claiming it was God's punishment
for a supposed pact the Haitians made with the devil in order to gain
independence from the French in 1804. Limbaugh said that Obama's
efforts to aid Haiti were just an attempt to curry favor with Black
Americans, so he urged his listeners not to contribute to the relief
effort. Fortunately many of the followers of both men recognized the
satanic nature of their comments and relied instead on their God-given
common sense and compassion. The Psalmist describes God's attributes as
including, in part, steadfast love, faithfulness, and justice. The
implication is that those who claim to follow God should exhibit the
same characteristics. Steadfast love, the love for one's brother or
sister, is mentioned frequently in the Hebrew Bible as a quality
required of the people of God. The idea is also found in the New
Testament, for example in 1 John 3:17: "How does God's love abide in
anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need
and yet refuses help?" Faithfulness, the word from which we get our
word "amen," describes an immovable object, a character trait that
withstands all that the world can throw at it intact and undiminished.
God calls those who carry the name of God on their lips to stand firm
against the callous hatred of evildoers, to do what's right and good for
all around us, especially those in need. Justice is a quality that acts
to bring about right, and it manifests itself internally in those who
are just as righteousness. Justice looks at a situation of suffering
like we see in Haiti and not only acts to meet the physical needs of the
people, it also asks the question, why is there so much suffering?
Earthquakes cause damage and bring about death wherever they occur, but
the devastation is always much greater in poor countries. Justice looks
at issues like structural sin as an explanation for the causes of much
human suffering. The psalmist praises God for loving and caring for the
Jewish people, who during this period were suffering economic hardship
and political oppression, experiences the Haitians of today know a lot
about. Does God love the Haitians of today in the same way God loved
the Jews of the fifth century B.C.E.? Of course, and God's love is
demonstrated in the selfless compassion and sacrifice of the innumerable
people who are giving of themselves for their fellow travelers in life's
journey.

April comes like an idiot, babbling and strewing flowers"
(Edna St. Vincent Millay, "Spring").

Henry Ford is purported to have said that the customer could have any
color of car, as long as it was black. During Pablo Picasso's Blue
Period, he created several paintings whose predominant color was blue.
Communist architects in East Berlin created huge buildings full of utility
and devoid of beauty. Aren't the roadways more interesting with cars in
many different colors populating their lanes? Although Picasso's blue
paintings are interesting and even possess a certain amount of beauty,
aren't we glad he didn't spend his entire career using blue paint almost
exclusively? Aren't many buildings that are not strictly utilitarian
beautiful? Variety is a good thing in the world around us, and it is
exemplified in nature. As Edna St. Vincent Millay notes, spring is
sometimes messy and verbose in its splashes of color, but it is deviation
from uniformity that makes it beautiful. The church should be a place
where variety is embraced. "There are varieties of gifts, but the same
Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there
are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of
them in everyone." None of the catalogs of spiritual gifts in the New
Testament, including today's reading in 1 Corinthians 12, is exhaustive;
rather, they are representative. God gives unique gifts to each of God's
children. Even when we use the same description, they are not the same
gifts. My gift of prophecy is not the same as yours, because our
approaches, methods, and experiences are different. Your gift of
discernment is not the same as your spouse's, because you have different
personalities. Variety of gifts, variety of services, variety of
activities, even variety of opinions should be seen as a good thing in the
church, but not everyone sees it that way. Some people would rather see
uniformity than variety. They refuse to associate with people with whom
they disagree on even the smallest detail of theology. They won't worship
with those whose liturgy is different (remember the Filioque controversy in
the Middle Ages?). They separate themselves from people who believe
almost exactly the same things but are open-minded enough to embrace those
with different points of view. The Southern Baptist Convention recently
announced plans to withdraw from its 99-year affiliation with the Baptist
World Alliance, a group it helped to form, because Baptists in other
nations entertained ideas that were slightly different from their own
hierarchically mandated dogma. They announced their intention of creating
a new group of Baptists (which they will control, of course) that will
emphasize more doctrinal uniformity--until members of that group start to
think for themselves, . . . . It is typical of the
fundamentalist mindset to insist on the highest degree of uniformity,
particularly, though not exclusively, on doctrinal matters. The value of
variety is a foreign concept to fundamentalists, but progressive
Christians accept variety and even encourage it. What a strange notion!
Why didn't God, or at least the Apostle Paul, think of it?

I grew up in tee-totaling Baptist circles, so I've heard all sorts of
explanations about how when Jesus turned the water into wine, it wasn't
really wine at all. One preacher claimed that the water in the jars
wasn't transformed into wine, only the water in the ladle that was taken
to the steward (if drinking wine is a sin, I'm not sure that having Jesus
create a smaller amount of it shields him from the charge of sinning).
Another said that the term "best wine" refers to grape juice, not the
fermented beverage (apparently he didn't share the opinion of Joy
Davidman, wife of C. S. Lewis, who called grape juice "that abominable
fluid"). A simple reading of the Old Testament reveals that, while abuse
of wine was discouraged in the book of Proverbs and elsewhere, wine was
considered a drink for festive occasions and a blessing of God (cf. Gen 14:18; 27:28; Deut 14:23; 16:13; Ps 104:15; Prov 3:10; Isa 25:6; Amos 9:13). Seeing wine as a blessing of God is
central to understanding Jesus' actions in the story of the Wedding in
Cana. Unlike the authors of the Synoptic Gospels, who have Jesus perform
a variety of miracles in different situations, John has Jesus perform
exactly seven miracles, which he calls "signs." These "signs" are
calculated to reveal who Jesus really is, the Incarnate Son of God. By
means of these signs, the divine glory that was within Jesus was briefly
revealed to those who paid attention. God broke forth in the lives of
people through Jesus' life and activities among them. Jesus'
transformation of the water into wine is not a call for Christians to
become moonshiners. Instead, it is a symbol that, like God, Jesus was
blessing people with wine at an appropriate occasion: a wedding. Too
often Christianity has been a religion of "Thou shalt nots." Thou shalt
not drink. Thou shalt not dance. Thou shalt not smoke. Thou shalt not
eat meat on Friday. Thou shalt not swear. Thou shalt not enjoy sex.
Thou shalt not be too enthusiastic in your religious expression. Thou
shalt not associate too closely with those outside your faith. We draw
lines around ourselves, and we draw lines around God. God cannot be found
at a wedding party that includes champagne and dancing, some say. God is
not present at birthday parties, or office Christmas parties, or Cinco de
Mayo celebrations, some think. However, Jesus' actions at the wedding in
Cana suggest that God wants us to enjoy life, to celebrate with family and
friends, to embrace community. Yes, there are excesses of all sorts to be
avoided, but while we're avoiding excess, we shouldn't at the same time
avoid life. Life is good, love is good, celebrating our joy together is
good. And where life, love, and celebration are present, it is likely
that God is present as well.